Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeals, setting aside penalties under s.112(b) and s.117 of the Customs Act, 1962, and quashing confiscation of seized gold and Indian currency. The Tribunal held the appellants discharged the burden under s.123 by production of invoices when the Revenue failed to respond, and adjudication under s.125 was defective for not offering the statutory option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation; accordingly the goods and currency were not liable to confiscation and s.112(b) penalties could not stand. Further, s.117 penalties were improper where appellants were implicated solely by third-party statements, were denied CDR analysis and opportunity to cross-examine, and no incriminating recovery was made. Appeals allowed; penalties and confiscation set aside.
The CESTAT allowed the appeals, setting aside penalties under s.112(b) and s.117 of the Customs Act, 1962, and quashing confiscation of seized gold and Indian currency. The Tribunal held the appellants discharged the burden under s.123 by production of invoices when the Revenue failed to respond, and adjudication under s.125 was defective for not offering the statutory option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation; accordingly the goods and currency were not liable to confiscation and s.112(b) penalties could not stand. Further, s.117 penalties were improper where appellants were implicated solely by third-party statements, were denied CDR analysis and opportunity to cross-examine, and no incriminating recovery was made. Appeals allowed; penalties and confiscation set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.